• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

They actually were, if they covered prescription meds of any kind.

In some states, but not all. So, that I know is not accurate.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I never heard that the government was responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

I guess you should get out a bit more, then, and maybe obvious goals like that wouldn't seem so unusual to you. For some odd reason, many people think, say, abortions are bad, so are kids born to teens unprepared to be mothers, or to drug addicted mothers, etc. and devote attention to solving some or all of those problems, and believe government has a role in some or all of them. It's not exactly a radical view of government we're talking about here.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I guess you should get out a bit more, then, and maybe obvious goals like that wouldn't seem so unusual to you. For some odd reason, many people think, say, abortions are bad, so are kids born to teens unprepared to be mothers, or to drug addicted mothers, etc. and devote attention to solving some or all of those problems, and believe government has a role in some or all of them. It's not exactly a radical view of government we're talking about here.

The government has no responsibility for controlling pregnancies. And I didn't think the purpose of the ACA was to prevent pregnancies either.

I'm a woman. I spent my entire adult life trying to not get pregnant when I didn't want to be pregnant. Shockingly, it can be done...and Uncle Sam didn't help me.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

In some states, but not all. So, that I know is not accurate.

The mandate was as a result of a ruling by EEOC, a Federal law. Here's the link I posted earlier. Contraceptive mandate (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal female contraception mandate before ACA

Certain aspects of the contraception mandate did not start with the ACA. In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.

It wasn't always enforced, but there was a mandate and by 2010, before ACA, the estimates were 90% covered contraceptives. And apparently 26 states had their own mandates, and many of them covered Catholic institutions (who complied) but are exempted by HHS. So the idea isn't new, was largely the law of the land prior to ACA, and the big deal was it expanded the list and made them available at no copay or for 'free.'
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The government has no responsibility for controlling pregnancies. And I didn't think the purpose of the ACA was to prevent pregnancies either.

I'm a woman. I spent my entire adult life trying to not get pregnant when I didn't want to be pregnant. Shockingly, it can be done...and Uncle Sam didn't help me.

The purpose of the ACA is to make healthcare available to more people for the purpose of improving health. Pregnancy, healthy kids, are, as I'm sure you'll agree, a big part of "healthcare" for women. So is family planning, which improves the odds mothers are ready to have and adequately care for children. In other cases preventing pregnancy is a medical necessity because pregnancy risks death for some women. Other women take contraceptives for reasons other than pregnancy prevention and the drugs have a direct effect on health like all other prescription drugs. For all these reasons, the medical community recommends contraceptives as part of a comprehensive health insurance package, along with other services like checkups and wellness visits.

BTW, you saying the government has no responsibility (technically true as an opinion, one of many I guess) doesn't mean much, because it's a goal, reducing unwanted pregnancies, that is shared by people across the political spectrum, many of whom believe government at all levels SHOULD play a role. If you disagree, we should just ignore the number of abortions and babies born to teen mothers, etc. that's GREAT! I disagree as do most people I'd imagine.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yes, that's all true.

But I guess I'm a little unclear about what the point is. I guess as a libertarian you object outright any employer regulations, so I'm hesitant to start any debate with that as the starting point. But 'what they provide or do' in the workplace is broad enough to include gender based discrimination of any kind, including a head covering, or requiring women to have male escorts in public, refusing to promote them to a position where they'd be supervising men, etc. I'd oppose that, I guess you'd say the women should find another place to work.

You made an initial fail in using that broad brush to say "any" employer regulations. Indeed there are things, especially in the areas of safety, that need to be in place and enforced. Are there safety regulations that go overboard? Hell yeah! Are there safety regulations that are just and necessary? Again hell yeah. Additionally, your post implies that I support personally what I support politically. Simply not true. I can support the woman's right to choose to have an abortion while opposing abortions themselves. Likewise, I can support an employer's right to hire and fire whomever (s)he wishes for whatever reason, while protesting their business if it is for reasons I do not agree with. As a libertarian, I believe there are some things that are for society to do for itself and not through the threat of force via law.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm a woman. I spent my entire adult life trying to not get pregnant when I didn't want to be pregnant. Shockingly, it can be done...and Uncle Sam didn't help me.

I'll just add that it's great you managed on your own. What we KNOW is about half (40-50%) of all pregnancies aren't planned, so lots of women fail, for all kinds of reasons, among them being lack of access to reliable methods of birth control, often because of cost, poor women have a hard time floating $1,000/year. But whatever the reason, we don't have to guess that there are MILLIONS of failures every year, the abortion stats bear that out, about 1.2 million per year. So what we're doing now isn't working.

Do you think we shouldn't try anything? Seems shortsighted to me.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Well, I guess to an extent it is. Laws against murder are ONE attempt to control the population.

ROFLMFAO!!!

Since when is the protection of a person's right (the right to life in this case) an attempt at population control?
 
I'll just add that it's great you managed on your own. What we KNOW is about half (40-50%) of all pregnancies aren't planned, so lots of women fail, for all kinds of reasons, among them being lack of access to reliable methods of birth control, often because of cost, poor women have a hard time floating $1,000/year. But whatever the reason, we don't have to guess that there are MILLIONS of failures every year, the abortion stats bear that out, about 1.2 million per year. So what we're doing now isn't working.

Do you think we shouldn't try anything? Seems shortsighted to me.

All the money in the world, all the destructive healthcare laws or Governmental mandates for the purpose of "equality " won't force people to be responsible.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The purpose of the ACA is to make healthcare available to more people for the purpose of improving health. Pregnancy, healthy kids, are, as I'm sure you'll agree, a big part of "healthcare" for women. So is family planning, which improves the odds mothers are ready to have and adequately care for children. In other cases preventing pregnancy is a medical necessity because pregnancy risks death for some women. Other women take contraceptives for reasons other than pregnancy prevention and the drugs have a direct effect on health like all other prescription drugs. For all these reasons, the medical community recommends contraceptives as part of a comprehensive health insurance package, along with other services like checkups and wellness visits.

BTW, you saying the government has no responsibility (technically true as an opinion, one of many I guess) doesn't mean much, because it's a goal, reducing unwanted pregnancies, that is shared by people across the political spectrum, many of whom believe government at all levels SHOULD play a role. If you disagree, we should just ignore the number of abortions and babies born to teen mothers, etc. that's GREAT! I disagree as do most people I'd imagine.

Do you think the ACA is going to stop teenagers from having unprotected sex?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

ROFLMFAO!!!

Since when is the protection of a person's right (the right to life in this case) an attempt at population control?

You left out the rest of that quote. The point was obvious, we have all kinds of policies that attempt to shape behavior, control the population, from laws against murder to credits for just about any activity you can think of.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Do you think the ACA is going to stop teenagers from having unprotected sex?

So we should do nothing. Got it. I disagree!
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So we should do nothing. Got it. I disagree!

So I take that as a "no the ACA isn't going to stop teenagers from having unprotected sex".

We are way off topic here. The topic isn't abortions. It's the Hobby Lobby ruling which has zero to do with teen sex and pregnancy.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You left out the rest of that quote. The point was obvious, we have all kinds of policies that attempt to shape behavior, control the population, from laws against murder to credits for just about any activity you can think of.

Duh! I wasn't addressing any other part of the quote. Why include it if I'm not addressing it? Your premise fails when you attempt to substitute one type of "behavior control" for another. It is disingenuous to say that a law that is in place to "control" behavior against the violation of a right is actually for controlling population. You are taking a result and trying to call it a purpose. When you make an incorrect association like that you will be called out for it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am, I'm poking fun at what looked to me like a laughably arrogant statement. Do you believe very few employees earn their pay?
How do you know the comment you're poking fun at wasn't itself poking fun?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Actually,
since the issue is based on HL's objection to contraceptives
False, but do go on
, the Democrats seem to be focusing more on the GOPs War on Women. I've heard they're already fund raising off of it.
.
well hell yeah ... that was the whole idea from the get-go. lol
Really once again drives home the reality that the Dem rank-and-file are pretty much LIV sheeple.

.....
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I actually don't know what your point is. The ruling clearly allows employers to state a moral objection against ALL contraception, and refuse to cover any of the option. This is clear FROM THE WORDING OF THE FINAL ORDER, and confirmed by the orders today. It covers the 'contraception mandate' not just abortifacients. If you agree, great, if not, read the rulings and the orders in that link.

I'm sorry but your reading of the decision is waaaaaaay too simplified.
1) not every employer will be able to succeed if they tried to object on religious grounds.
2) not every employer is going to even try.

What do you see as a common thread in the cases sent back for review by the orders to the lower courts in your own link? See anything? It pretty much jumps off the page.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Hobby Lobby might have objected to only 4 types, but they explicitly argued the case on the basis of a religious objection being able to trump all forms of birth control.

Frankly, this is easily the worst Supreme Court decision in at least my lifetime. How can you segregate women’s reproductive healthcare from everything else? What about Scientologists? Can they do away with their prescription drug plan? What about pacifists, should they be refunded the portion of taxes spent on military? What is the fundamental difference between paying into a fund that pays into a fund that pays into something you don't like and paying taxes which goes toward appropriations which goes to something you don't like? Why is a religious objection to womens health care different from a religious objection to drone attacks?

Also, remember this is a for profit corporation that no longer has to pay for something required by every other employer. They gain a competitive advantage because of their religious beliefs. As many as 90% of all US Businesses fall into the "closely held" category as defined by the SCOTUS. So we should expect them to start all "joining" the religion which opts them out of anything to give them a competitive advantage.

I doubt the 90% figure but it's irrelevant given they don't employ 90% of the working force.

Your other ruminations have already been considered and rulings delivered.

If they can justify & demonstrate their religious exemption, yes, employers should not be forced to violate their beliefs.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It's more effective than not pulling out.

Didn't say it wasn't. Try again.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

They can also reject the policies provided by their employee and get a policy from the exchange. I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


Well, then they would have choices.

They could work elsewhere if birth control is that important to them.
They can pay for them themselves (which women did before the ACA).
Or they can quit their jobs, collect unemployment, and sign up for the Obamacare insurance and get all of the covered birth control they want and need.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

On the contrary. The decision followed US law perfectly. It was the liberal side that wanted to ignore the RFRA.

Then you're fine with other people making decisions for you based on their religious beliefs which circumvent US law? Because that's what we're talking about here.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

**** that ****. Toby doesn't pull out for any woman.



It's more effective than not pulling out.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So I take that as a "no the ACA isn't going to stop teenagers from having unprotected sex".

We are way off topic here. The topic isn't abortions. It's the Hobby Lobby ruling which has zero to do with teen sex and pregnancy.

Of course it's not going to STOP anything. What the contraception mandate will hopefully do is reduce unwanted pregnancies. But, yes, I assume many of those minors, who are covered under new ACA plans through their working parents, many working moms, will benefit from that insurance and obtain affordable, accessible, and effective contraception and it will reduce the problem. That's the purpose, and I support it. You don't, which is fine.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Duh! I wasn't addressing any other part of the quote. Why include it if I'm not addressing it? Your premise fails when you attempt to substitute one type of "behavior control" for another. It is disingenuous to say that a law that is in place to "control" behavior against the violation of a right is actually for controlling population. You are taking a result and trying to call it a purpose. When you make an incorrect association like that you will be called out for it.

OK, I'll concede I included a failed example among several examples cited to make a point! :peace
 
Back
Top Bottom